barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
Just as the meaning of 'arms' as those suitable for lawful purposes hasn't changed, neither has the meaning of the militia. At most it has been modified by the 14th amendment to include minorities and women. In order to be a effective base to draw upon for militia service, you needed armed and equipped men. The point was to avoid the expense and abuses of conscription, and take some burden/responsibility off the domestic armed forces.In modern terms, the "militia" is the base from which the active armed forces may be drawn, either by conscription or volunteering. That's the only thing that would be analogous to the 18th century "universal" militia that the Framers had in mind. There is no problem in seeing this as synonymous with "the people." (Indeed, if the draft were re-instituted today, it would doubtless include women, minorities, etc., categories that were excluded from the "militia" in the 18th century.) The 2nd Amendment is saying that this base should already be armed, before the need arises.
The Article I provisions concerning the militia, namely:
"To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
are totally consistent with this interpretation.
TCB